Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Harry Cammish

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Speedied. Attack page (CSD G10). Also, BLP violation with no acceptable version to revert to. Misuse of Wikipedia by creating pages for purposes of teasing, harassment, or cyberbullying is unacceptable and is to be addressed by deletion, not by days of discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Harry Cammish

 * – (View MfD)

There’s no way this could blossom into an article. Possible CSD-G10, though. Kleuske (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * One, I disagree there's no way it could "blossom" into an article. It's unambiguously promotional. Did you try G10/G11? If you feel those should qualify, then this should be tried first. MfD is the last resort. Doug Mehus T · C  15:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment (was ) This is a sub-stub. It's not unambiguously promotional and I don't see it as an "attack page." Doug Mehus T · C  15:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A sub stub specifying a completely and utterly non-notable person who is, allegedly, bad at person vs. person gameplay? An interesting notion. Kleuske (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I've amended my !vote. Doug Mehus T · C  18:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I disagree with User:Dmehus that something that is marginal on any speedy code should be submitted for speedy deletion. Articles that might be A7 but might pass credible claim of significance and fail notability should go to AFD.  Drafts that are almost nonsense but not quite, or that are hoaxes but not blatant, should come to MFD.  If you think that it might not be speediable, it is reasonable to bring it here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete this. Nominator was right in bringing it here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per and per my pre-reading. Still, what I was trying to say is actually what Robert said above, that nom should've speedy deleted this. It probably actually could've been deleted on A7 grounds or possibly as a G2 test page. Doug Mehus  T · C  18:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - And I was saying, disagreeing with User:Dmehus, that User:Kleuske should not have speedy-tagged this, but brought it here. Also, A7 doesn't apply to drafts, and G2 doesn't apply to drafts.  There is a decline reason for drafts that are test pages, so that the reviewer declines them so as not to bite the newbie.  G11 does apply to drafts, because spammers do need to be bitten.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-reading your comments again, I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying that A7 doesn't apply to drafts. As for G2, well, that maybe so, but I've had administrators delete pages from Draft: and User: namespace that are clearly test pages, unless in a "sandbox." Doug Mehus T · C  18:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * G2 (linked above) actually states that "[it does not apply to pages in the user namespace]", but is silent on drafts. Glades12 (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. A waste of time that is wasting more time by being discussed at MfD.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - not a real draft - Whpq (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.